Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 80 - CESTAT MUMBAIValuation - misdeclaration of declared value - Finalisation of provisional assessment - jurisdiction - power of adjudicating authority - whether the adjudicating authority was a proper officer of customs? - Held that: - the impugned order refers to the pricelist as that of 2000 in some places and as of 2006 in others; it is, therefore, not clear whether the pricelist is contemporaneous or is of 2000. It would also certainly stretch the limits of reason to countenance what is referred to in the impugned order as 'practice of assessment followed by the department' for justifying resort to pricelist of 2000 - It would also appear that the impugned order has proceeded directly to rule 8 without sequentially applying the rules preceding it. It is also seen from the appeal before us that an agreement for a substantially large order had been contracted with the seller in Singapore who had entered into an agreement for supply by the manufacturer. The impugned order has failed to take notice of this agreement which must be considered relevant, in the absence of any contemporaneous imports, for determining the appropriateness of the declared value. The assessable value had not been mis-declared by the appellant - At the same time, the appellant has not been able to establish that the inconsistencies pointed out are borne out by facts and are not mere inferences. The existence of authenticated pricelist as well as contemporaneous imports with higher declared value cannot be ruled out. Revenue cannot be allowed to be jeopardised owing to less than diligent application of mind in adjudication. Sufficient evidence had been furnished to the appellant in the SCN as to justify the initiation of proceedings. Those proceedings must be brought to culmination by the competent authority after due consideration of the show cause notice the various evidences adduced therein and those produced by the noticee. It would, therefore, be appropriate that this exercise be undertaken with promptitude - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|